Recent Comments

Prev  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  Next

Comments 101301 to 101350:

101301. stefaan at 18:22 PM on 17 December 2010
        Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
        Hi John, To my opinion, two opposite factors will influence the distance earth/sun. First : the sun is becomming bigger due to the mass loss with about 4 % every 1 billion year (*wiki). So if the earth would keep the same orbit, the surface of the sun would be closer of course. However, there is a second effect, the equilibrium between the centripetal force (mv*v/r) and the gravitational force (Gm1m2/r*r). So if the mass of the sun is becoming smaller, the gravitational force decreases which will induce a larger orbit (to decrease the centripetal force). Of course the latter can also be achieved by reducing the speed of the earth but i think that that is very easy to verify.
101302. muoncounter at 16:41 PM on 17 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        #10: "at the AGU meeting" Nope, sitting around the house watching Congress not do anything about everything. But a beer sounds good. One correction to the prior comments - Kerr did not give a talk, he wrote about one. Selective reporting, which was picked up in watt$world with their usual cherrypicking skills. So back to citizenchallenge in #6, the game's not poker; its Go Fish!
101303. hfranzen at 16:13 PM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        I don't think we are so very far apart. Since I am not familiar with the influence of biological activity I can only learn from what you present. Since I am considering the situation when the CO2 in the air and water phases are very close to equilibrium it is clear that I cannot deal with the situation in which photosynthesis is faster than diffusion. I don't understand what you mean by carbonate dissociating. I think that must be a "slip of the tongue". A point that I have been trying to make is that if the hydroxide ion concentration, the bicarbonate ion concentration, and twice the carbonate ion concentration re summed and then the hydrogen ion concentration is subtracted the result is far from zero - it is in fact, quite close to the bicarbonate ion concentration, a fact that is immediately apparent when one recognizes that bicarbonate is the most important species in the solution. It is by a large factor more importamt than hyrogen at the nominal pH of sea water of 8.1 plus or minus. The exact value is not important to the argument, just the fact that the concentration is much lower than the bicarbonate concentration. The significance of this apparent charge imbalance is that the majority of the carbon dioxide present in the three solute species cannot have arrived in the oceans from the atmosphere for if it had these charges would balance, but it has to have come in from another source such as from the worlds rivers as dissolved strong electrolyte (I would say dissolved calcium bicarbonate and carbonate, but of course there is no way to associate the ions anions and cations in a strong electrolyte solution. The important fact is that of the myriad of cations in the ocean some came in with the bicarbonate (and, to a lesser extent the carbonate). These must be in the sea and they do not, of course, exchange with the gas phase. Here is my main point: any attempt to consider the inorganic chemistry of the carbon bearing species must be made recognizing the existence of the cationic charge that balanced the bicarbonate and carbonate when they entered the sea. For this reason there is a restraint on the concentrations of the ions - they are subject to the restraint that the sum that I listed above plus the balancing cationic charge that entered the oceans with them is zero and unchanging. This restraint is an equation on a par with the equlibrium constants - i.e. there are 4 equilibrium constants and the charge balance equation fixing the concentrations of hydrogen ion, hydroxide ion, bicrbonate ion, carbonate ion, dissolved CO2 and the partial pressure of CO2(g) when one of these is fixed. Where you say, "and carbonate (sic) and bicarbonate must dissociate to reestablish equilibrium" I would say, "and bicarboante must dissociate to reestablish equilibrium subject the the restraint of the charge balance equation". I cannot agree with your statements in the paragraph that starts, "Based on 104". All that is required for transport is: 1.as the result of a temperature increase at point A the CO2 partial pressure is increased with loss of dissolved CO2 from the ocean owing to the endothermicity of the reaction forming CO2(g) from CO2(aq) 2. the partial pressure in this parcel of air is then at this time greater than the average value, 3. thus when the parcel arrives at point B, if its temperature was not increased by the same amount the chemical potential of CO2 in the gas phase will be greater than that in the water solution and some CO2 will dissolve. Thus some CO2 is transported from A to B. When the temperatures seasonally revert to their original values the process will be reversed, hence a cycle results. My problem with the 300 GT cycle is, if what I suggest is a correct interpretaton of the transport, as follows: I can calculate the increase in pressure at point A if T increases by ten degrees - it is 0.000091 bar. I can then calculate, using the ideal gas law, the volume that 300 GT of the released gas would occupy at the median temperature- the result is eight time 10 to to the 19 cubic meters. I can now calculate, again using the ideal gas law, the number of moles of air in this volume at 1 bar and 300K - the answer is 3 times ten to the 21 moles. But there are only 1.88 times ten to the 20 moles of air in the whole atmosphere. Of course there is nothing to say that the same air doesn,t circle back many times, but the amount of air required is absurd. The point here is that 300 GT of CO2 is an enourmous amount of CO2 and it would take an unbelievable amount of air to move it.
101304. Tom Dayton at 15:07 PM on 17 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        muoncounter, I'm inferring that you are at the AGU meeting. I'm jealous! I went last year, though spent considerable time being a booth babe. Had out of town obligations this year. If you go next year, let's meet for beer!
101305. Karamanski at 14:21 PM on 17 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        Could the recent sea ice deficit in Hudson Bay and in Baffin Bay be behind the current Greenland block weather pattern bringing cold weather here in the American Midwest? The past three winters have been colder and snowier than normal in the Midwest. Is it likely that warming in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic be the cause of the recent trend towards colder and snowier winters in the Midwest?
        Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The reduced sea ice is probably more of a function of warmer sea surface temperatures. The blocking patterning of which you speak is also probably helping retard the ice formation by keeping out polar air masses. RealClimate has a timely post on that very situation here. There is some evidence, gaining clarity, that some of these "different" weather events, once rare, may become more frequent in a (supposedly) warming world as atmospheric patterns reorganize to a different regime.
101306. muoncounter at 13:38 PM on 17 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        #6: "Galloping Glaciers of Greenland" Actually the call was during the same meeting as Kerr's talk. Khan et al 2009: We analyze data from continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers located around the edge of the Greenland Ice sheet. ... Our results show huge uplift in southeast Greenland due to mass loss from the main outlet glaciers in the region. The signal is also picked up by GRACE as a huge mass loss in the same region. Additionally, our GPS results show acceleration of uplift in northwest Greenland starting around 2006-2007. This appears to provide on-the-ground confirmation of the GRACE interpretations. So unless Kerr is ready to go all-in, he'd better fold 'em.
101307. muoncounter at 13:20 PM on 17 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        #6: "Galloping Glaciers of Greenland" Here's one from this year's meeting. Not a rebuttal of Kerr, but if this was poker, his bet is called. Krabill et al 2010 Repeat airborne laser surveys of the glacier were begun in 1993 ...and continue under NASA's ongoing IceBridge program. ATM and ICESat (2003-2009) observations quantify the spreading of the region that is thinning and the volume of ice loss. Coincident acceleration of the icestream suggests a dynamic mechanism to the thinning as the icestream draws in greater quantities of ice... demonstrates thinning near the glacier snout continues at about the same rate since 1997, while further inland thinning has accelerated. -- emphasis added
101308. Stephen Baines at 11:35 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Somebody...tell me that makes sense. I'm not sure I can do better!
101309. Stephen Baines at 11:22 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        hpfranzen 104 is clearer than 102, and I largely agree with it except that you are still underplaying the role of biology. I'll address some quotes from 102 post keeping your clarifications in 104 in mind. "The ionic equilibria are independent of any organic phenomena." I'm not sure but I think you've getting caught up in a minor caveat I made for the sake of completeness. Dissolved organic matter can definitely affect the ionic charge balance because it is abundant, acidic and usually have a negative charge. Equilibria between cations and ions in solution must obey charge balance, that includes carbonate and bicarbonate. In dilute systems this can pose a problem. However, DOM is less of an issue in marine systems because the high salinity of seawater swamps the effect of dissolved organic matter. I think we agree on that so lets leave that aside. "Your statement that organic matter can pose problems for analytical solutions is correct only if the organic matter is affecting the concentration of disolved CO2 faster than the ionic eqilibrations can respond which is vary hard for me to believe. " I don’t think you are thinking of the same mechanism I am. Biological uptake of CO2 via photosynthesis only needs to be faster than diffusion of CO2 across the surface to affect the carbonate equilibria. When that happens aqueous CO2/carbonic acid decreases and bicarbonate and carbonate must dissociate to reestablish equilibrium between the carbon species. That dissociation consumes protons and raises pH. The increase in pH and alkalinity (and decrease in pCO2 and DIC) resulting from photosythesis is routinely measured and can be used to infer net CO2 uptake by photosynthesis. Because the water is now undersaturated with CO2 relative to the atmosphere, net flux of CO2 is into the water. If photosynthesis stops, eventually the carbonate equilibria will restablish its initial equilibrium as CO2 ingresses and the atmosphere and ocean come back into equilibrium. If the all the organic matter produced by photosynthesis is respired to CO2 again, the whole process happens in reverse and no net CO2 exchange happens. If the organic matter sinks to depths that do not exchange with the atmosphere, or if the water sinks to depth due to downwelling, there is a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, and DIC from surface waters.. "What you say about the southern latitudes having "to see that higher partial pressures occur" is wrong. All that is needed is for the atmosphere to circulate, which as I am sure you know it does, carrying the CO2-rich air to the CO2-poor region." Based on 104, I think we can agree that for net CO2 flux into the ocean to occur, waters must be undersaturated with CO2 relative to the atmosphere above those waters, right? So, for CO2 released by seasonal warming at high latitudes to be absorbed by warmer less seasonal tropical waters, the seasonal warming of high latitude waters would have to cause the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere above those tropical waters to increase in summer, resulting in a similar increase (though possibly lagged) above tropical waters. Only that way would a gradient in chemical potential exist that could drive CO2 influx. Unfortunately, the data I linked to shows little evidence of such a seasonal cycle in the southern hemisphere where the ocean dominates the earths surface area. The northern hemisphere does show a seasonal cycle, but it is timed to accrual of terrestrial biomass during the northern hemisphere spring and yields the opposite seaonal pattern you predict (low pCO2 as northern waters warm in spring). The lack of the predicted pattern results from a number of causes, but the main one is that increased biological uptake of CO2 in spring/summer counterbalances the effect of increasing temperature to a large degree by decreasing pCO2 in surface waters. To the degree that release of CO2 does occur due to warming at high latitudes (and it does in places), it is too small to register as a strong enough signal to drive influx in the tropics. FWIW...I think you are engaged in a fine but difficult activity. I just want to make sure you're not misled. I suggest reading chapter on the carbon cycle in Sarmiento and Grubers Ocean Biogeochemical Dynamics. Your probably easily advanced enough to understand it and we can only go so far here.
101310. citizenschallenge at 11:18 AM on 17 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        Thank you Daniel for that excellent detailed understandable description of the state of the knowledge regarding Greenland and glacial dynamics. John Cook and his gang that could shoot straight ! - you folks are really making a difference, at least in the availability of focused science information for the layperson, I sure do appreciate it. ~ ~ ~ I have a question - Can someone address the latest thing reverberating around the AGWHoaxer's Echo-chamber: Science 23 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5913, p. 458 FALL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION: Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In Richard A. Kerr Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end." ~ ~ ~ I cannot find any critique on Kerr's study, any information would be appreciated. peter m
101311. scaddenp at 10:36 AM on 17 December 2010
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Henry, before continuing with idea that reduced sun is going to cause global cooling, please state why you disagree with the conclusion of Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010)
101312. muoncounter at 10:22 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        #105: "don't see any way around that - the data used fit observed laboratory spectra" And the higher temperature gradients are derived from observed temperatures. Here is a graphic from the Temperature record reliability thread. The vertical scale is degC/decade. However, since your model is determined (if I read it correctly) by ocean-CO2 interaction, perhaps it is significant that the rate of change you calculate agrees with the rates shown for oceans only.
101313. Henry justice at 09:49 AM on 17 December 2010
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        This site needs updating in light of the greatly reduced sunspots of Solar Cycle 24. It appears now to be a repeat Dalton minimum with overtones of morphing into a new Maunder minimum if the sunspots flat lines out after 2015. Some believe we are in for several decades of global cooling. Will global cooling or anthropogenic global warming become more pronounced as the years roll forward?
        Moderator Response: Henry, you've already posted a very similar comment in the thread What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?. Quite a few people have replied to your comment over there. Please keep discussions of a hypothetical future Dalton/Maunder Minimum confined to that thread.
101314. hfranzen at 09:05 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        muoncounter: thabk you for looking at my website! I take what you say to mean thst the forcing is lower than you would like. I don't see any way around that - the data used fit observed laboratory spectra and the calculation does not allow any wiggle room. It is juat plain hard science. But I think anyone who's heart is warmed by a 1.4 degree per hundred year forcing is not vary smart! After all we are dealing with a century of ca, 1 deg forcing right now - is anyone happy with the curreht rates of change in our environment. At any rate I did this because there are those whose denial takes the form, "it's not happening" and to my way of thinking it is useful to be able to confront them with what I consider hard facts and rigorous logic as opposed to conjecture and statistics. By demonstrating that the warming we are experiencing right now is almost exactly predictable using undergraduate chenistry and physics I think I strengthen the hand of the climatologists who can then go on, hopefully, to convince deniers that in the future feedbacks are likely and potentially catastrophic.
101315. hfranzen at 07:03 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        I feel the need to put my comments above in perspective. There is for carbon dioxide (or any other chamical species) a given chemical potential at a given T,P and chemical composition. In every cirumstance if there are two phases at a given temperature and applied pressure (ocean and air at some point on the surface, for example) the species will tend to go from phase 1 to phase 2 if and only if the chamical potential is greater in phase 1 than it is in phase 2. In terms of the oceans and the atmosphere the chemical potentials of carbon dioxide in the two phases are, to a very good approximation, given by (not equal to, but functions of at the given T an P) the partial pressure of CO2 in the air and the molality of CO2 in the water. When at equilibrium the chemical potantials are equal The chamical potential of the CO2 in the ocean could be influenced by the present of other dissolved substances. I am asserting, and my experience leads me to believe that it is a correct assertion, that the chemical potential of the CO2 is not significantly influenced by the presence of dissolved organic species at the level at which they occur in the ocean and is certinly not influenced by living organisms. what do I mean by significantly? A plus or minus 50% error would lead to the same conclusions that I reach, and I would be very surprised if the calculated molalities are off by even 1% because of organic solute species. I believe this assertion to be true for carbonate and bicarbonate as well. For this reason I claim that the equilibria of these inorganic species are independent of life processes and the resultant organic matter in the oceans. Because they carry a charge their The chemical potentials of ionic species,because they carry a charge, are influnced by dissolved salts, and in my calculations I include this influence using the Debye-Hueckel Law. This calculation is actually going to extremes to try to get the best result possible - the argument here is basically about the tendency (spontaneous direction) for chemical reactions and does not depend upon the actual molalities but rather upon the change in reaction direction with increasing and decreasing temperature and basic thermodyanamics. That is, it is a rquirement of thermodynamics that in order for CO2 to pass from the ocean to the atmosphere it is necessary that the chemical potential of CO2 in the aqueous phase be greater than that in the solution phase. The deniers, by the wauy, miss this point entirely. Be that as it may, as the temperature of the system is seasonally increased the chemical potentials, which are equal at equilibrium, are unbalanced in the direction so that CO2 passes from the ocean into the atmosphere (the chemical potential of aqueous CO2 increases more rapidly with temperature than does that of the gaseous CO2). That higher chemical potental CO2 will move with the air mass, and when it comes to a place where the chemical potenial in the ocean is lower than it is in the atmosphere (i.e., at a point at which the temperature is lower than at the starting point) it will dissolve. Thus do we get transport in one direction. When the temperatures seasonally revert to their original values the processes reverse. Therefore a cycle. This is Physical Chemistry. I know nothing about the life processes in the ocean and their role and I am anxious to learn. But this I do know: what I have stated immediately above is thermodyamics plain and simple and unless something completely unknown is occrrring the organic natter and living organism are a red herring in the discussion of the ionic equilibria. So my question about charge balance is a highly relevant one - the ionic equilbria, which I agree do not tell the whole story because of biological processes but do none-the-less tell an independent story that cannot be denied without denying thermodynamics, can shift only in a manner consistent with electrical neutraliy. This in turn means that the way in which the deniers claim that CO2 comes out of the ocean in copious amounts is nonsense and the notion that 300 GT of carbon dioxide pass from one to another portion of the ocean in a year is highly suspect.
        Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please break long comments into paragraphs. The average human mind has difficulty in following statements beyond a certain length (3-4 sentences per paragraph is about the limit). You'll find more engagement as a result.
101316. scaddenp at 07:00 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Since any actual measurement agrees with textbook theory, I think that burden in on damorel to produce evidence of a measurement that disagrees. Of course this would also involve understanding what the textbook physics actually do predict rather than some imagined belief about the physics.
101317. muoncounter at 06:27 AM on 17 December 2010
        It's cooling
        #84: "covered in meadows" Where have you heard that? If you are referring to the Medieval Warm Period, here is a map that shows Norse settlements of the period; I believe the large white area is ice and snow. And here is a more appropriate thread for further discussion of that subject.
101318. Ganesha at 06:22 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        RE #259: damorbel at 03:54 AM on 17 December, 2010 Can you please clarify exactly what your point is? Are you complaining that people refer to the earth as a black body? - Isn't a black body a theoretical thing? - Does it help if you just read that as "grey body"? - How does your concern over the black body terminology impact the earth's emission of IR radiation? Are you suggesting that the earth doesn't emit IR? Honestly, I can't find what your point is. Just come out and state it.
101319. muoncounter at 06:19 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        #98: "a forcing level of 1,4 K per century is a scientific reality." Indeed! However, we see average rates of change that are higher: 0.16 deg C/decade is a commonly quoted linear trend for the global temperature record. When one looks 'only' at the last 50 years, rates of twice that are not uncommon - and may in fact be the new norm. The pdf on your website takes CO2 up to 688ppm (100 years from now) from a starting point of 386ppm (now); not quite a doubling. So your 1.4 degrees per century implies a low sensitivity (approx 1.6 degrees per doubling of CO2). Unfortunately, this seemingly low rate would warm even a denier's stone-cold heart. I suggest that you contact John Cook directly using the 'Contact us' link at the bottom of every SkS page regarding the newer version.
101320. KR at 06:07 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        damorbel - Did you read the rest of my post here? Demonstrating (using your formulation of energy flow) that outgoing energy from the ground is decreased by the presence of greenhouse gases? And that (as you agreed here) temperature will change until outgoing energy again equals incoming energy, in this case increasing to match decreased outgoing energy at any particular temperature? GHG's -> decreased outgoing energy -> temperature rise -> outgoing equals incoming - > Greenhouse effect, Q.E.D. You've agreed to all the components of greenhouse heating, yet still disagree with the conclusions. You insist that textbook fundamentals are incorrect without proof. I cannot consider those reasonable positions to take, and hence not worth my while discussing. As to my tone, I must admit to a bit of sarcasm after 262 comments on the topic of bad piece of science writing published in an off-topic journal.
101321. kdfv at 06:02 AM on 17 December 2010
        It's cooling
        If Greenland was covered in meadows in 1400 where did all the run off go? Surely it would have mostly been under water along with many other places!
101322. damorbel at 05:49 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Re #261 KR you wrote:- "You have not responded (or, apparently, read) my posts " And you linked to your #250 where you wrote:- "By George, I think you've got it! Even if you don't recognize it." Is there something about these posts that needs a reply? I have the impression you were making an effect rather than an argument. I have made a number of relevant arguments about the direction of heat transfer (hotter to colder) and the standard response comes 'back radiation' which is only half the matter it is the difference of radiation 'in' and 'out' that determines temperature change. Now surely that is something for such discussion such as this? You wrote "I consider this discussion at an end." I'm sorry but when you make remarks such as "your postings are simply noise" then I begin to understand what your real problem is, and its nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
        Moderator Response: Please avoid arguments about who did or did not respond, as they are off-topic to the scientific content of this post. Your comments regarding direction of heat transfer have been addressed multiple times in this thread. If you have specific rebuttals to these comments then please address the points directly.
101323. hfranzen at 05:18 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        The ionic equilibria are independent of any organic phenomena. The carbonate, bicarbonate, CO2, and water will equibrate regardless of what else is going on. The numbers relating the equilibrium concentrations of these specis are essetntally independentof dissoled or suspended or living organic matter (the only way the ionic equilibria could be altered by organic matter is through activity coefficients. and I cannot imagine these being altered in any substantial way by the presence of organic matter at the concentrations in the ocean) Your statement that organic matter can pose problems for analytical solutions is correct only if the organic matter is affecting the concentration of disolved CO2 faster than the ionic eqilibrations can respond which is vary hard for me to believe. The upshot is that regardless of the organic processes, which do, I agree. have a large effect on the amount of CO2 ultimately taken up in the oceans. The ionic equilibria give the equilibrium relations between the concentrations of the species, which is all that I am relying on. What you say about the southern latitudes having "to see that higher partial pressures occur" is wrong. All that is needed is for the atmosphere to circulate, which as I am sure you know it does, carrying the CO2-rich air to the CO2-poor region. Actually that statement is not exactly correct for if their were no circulation there would still be a chemical potential gradient and the CO2 would diffuse. This would occur even if there were do air, i.e., if the atmosphere were CO2 only. Of course diffusion would be a lot slower thn the circulation but this idea about "seeing" has no physical basis. I cannot imagine how you envision the CO2 in the carbon cycle being transported if not by circulation of the air. And, for the reasons given immediately aobve, it will not dissolve when it gets there unless the partial pressure exceeds that given by Henry's law for the temperature and concentration at the lower temperature.
101324. KR at 04:53 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        damorbel - You have not responded (or, apparently, read) my posts here (re: your post which actually confirms the greenhouse effect) or here (on albedo). Let alone the this restatement of the actual topic of the thread. You've agreed with every component of greenhouse gas heating, yet continue to insist that the result of those physics does not occur. If you "require the fundamentals to be re-examined", and feel the textbooks are wrong, then write a paper proving that, and get the textbooks changed. Insisting on your mis-interpretation of physics and rejection of established science with no evidence is not going to convince anyone. You've been pointed to appropriate references time and again, and appear to just reject them where they conflict with your pre-conceived notions. At this point your postings are simply noise - if you have questions, then pay at least some attention to the answers. I don't know if you are genuinely confused as to the physics or trolling - at this point there is no difference from my point of view. I consider this discussion at an end.
101325. Stephen Baines at 04:26 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        A correction...the sentence about upwelling should read... If it comes to the surface and warms (and phytoplankton don't take up the CO2), large amounts of CO2 can evade(as in the Equatorial Pacific).
101326. Stephen Baines at 04:21 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        hpfranzen "Thus a transport of the CO2 is "driven" by the seaonal temperature changes. The process is reversed when the seanon changes back to the starting point." That model doesn't work so well for a number of reasons. First, lower warmer less seasonal latitudes would have to "see" that CO2 that was evaded in warming high latitude oceans. In other words, the evasion of CO2 would have to have significant effects on the ppm of CO2 above less seasonal waters for the mechanism you suggest to occur. But CO2 is a fairly well mixed gas, so mixing through the atmosphere greatly dilutes any effect of seasonal evasion on atmopsheric CO2 above tropical waters (you can see in that flying carpet diagram that seasonal variations in CO2 are relatively small as one approaches the tropics). Second, you are treating this as a solely physicochemical phenomenon when biology plays a huge role by altering the aquoeus pCO2 concentration (and thus the saturation displayed by CO2) through photosynthetic uptake of CO2 and subsequent export of organic matter to depth. This is particularly important in the spring when nutrients are abundant, light is increasing and waters are warming. The depression in pCO2 associated with photosynthesis offsets the seasonal evasion effect you are describing. Third, the process you describe should cancel out over a year (as long as one ignores phytoplankton)...which may be the point you are trying to make. For that reason and the ones I gave above, it is not considered that important from the point of view of understanding the carbon cycle. It's a bit of a red herring. Focusing on it misrepresents what modelers are doing. Oceanographic processes are more important. Deep water has high CO2 because it is 1) cold and 2) has been accumulating CO2 released by respiration over a long period of time (as in the Equatorial Pacific. If it comes to the surface and warms (and phytoplankton don't take up the CO2), large amounts of CO2 can evade. Also important is the downwelling of water that was warm, but has subsequently cooled (as in the north Atlantic). CO2 is not only a function of the solubility pump. Organic matter produced by phytoplankton represents trapped atmospheric CO2. The downwelling of water that has experienced massive phytoplankton blooms, as occurs in high latitudes and above south of thesubantarctic front, traps CO2 in organic form. Phytoplankton growth also drives aqueous pCO2 lower, which drives invasion of CO2. "Why is the condition of elecrical neutralty not brought into the discussion. " Charge balance is absolutely required to solve chemical equilibrium problems in the ocean - although the presence of organic matter can pose problems for analytical solutions. This statement tells me that you need desperately need to absorb quite a bit more marine chemistry before proceding.
101327. hfranzen at 04:05 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        My power point does not include the feedbacks because it involves only Physical Chamistry and no Climatology. I am not trying to provide a counter to the Climatologists -in fact my ppt is built on their ideas. However it seems to me that many have got caught up in debating the feedbacks - a highly important debate in my opiniom - but have lost sight of the fact that there is a simple (at least to a P. Chemist)fact based, no iffy assumptions, no dependence on statistics argument that says in quantitative terms that there is a forcing and that we should therefore be taking the climatologists thoughts about the feedbacks very seriosly. The power point depends upon an understanding at the undergraduate level of the Keeling curve of the rotationl-vibration levels of CO2, of how these relate to the spectral observations, an awareness of Planck's law, a familiarty with undergraduate calculus, and an ability to understand the concept of a flux. In my ppt all of these are combined to show in a no nonsens, no wiggle room fashion that global warming at a forcing level of 1,4 K per century is a scientific reality. We do not need the earth's temperature record, observations of melting glaciers and ice caps, unusual frequencies of weather phenomens,(all of which are important and must be discussed in the proper context!) to conclude that we humans are the major cause of a serious problem having to do with the energy balance here on earth. Unless there are deniers reading this I am sure you all know this. What I am saying is in my power point there is a logical, if-then proof as sound as science can make it that global warming is real. I am not sure how to proceed, If someone says yes I want it I will post my e-mail address (unless someone warns me that this is not safe) and folks can e-mail requesting a copy. I could also give my snail mail address and, if people trust me. they could send their e-mail addresses and I will would the power point as an attachment.I have a web site with an early version of the power point (hfranzen.org if I remember correctly) and it gives the gist of the argument, which may be enough to see whether you want the latest version in which i have corrected many erros and improved the notationl I think I should also look into getting the web site updated, but I need to consult my web guru to get that done and that may not be so easy because he lives 1000 miles from my home. On the other hand a simple e-mail to him might suffice. Please let mo know what I should do.
101328. damorbel at 04:00 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Re #258 archiesteel you wrote:- "CO2 is largely transparent to visible light." I think the albedo is also to be found in both the IR and UV bands.
101329. damorbel at 03:54 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Re 257 Riccardo I am interested in your own ideas on climate matters. I have read plenty of posts anI am also very familiar with the arguments put forward for a 'GH' effect so I am basically only looking for new insights, blogs 'explaining the fndamentals' are of little use to me. What probaly upsets you is that I require the fundamentals to be re-examined. Typically the 'fundamentals' explain that 'The Earth emits like a black body' possibly with 'in the infrared'. A statement like this is nonsense because nothing that reflects like the Earth, with its albedo, can ever emit like a black body; such a statement breaks just about everything known and long established about electromagnetic radiation. And when a VIP of the IPCC writes in his book on Atmospheric Physics that he 'assumes that Earth radiates like a black body', then I am certain there is something deeply wrong with his 'climate theory'. I do think that the climate change hypothesis needs very careful examination and it this 'black body' type of assumptions, making nonsense of both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, that concerns me the most.
101330. archiesteel at 03:51 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        @damorbel: "Now what is the effect of CO2, does it decrease the albedo" CO2 is largely transparent to visible light. You've been called on to stop your misinformation. Why won't you?
101331. hfranzen at 03:29 AM on 17 December 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Regarding what drives the CO2: the temperature at point A rises seasonally. As a result the solubiity of CO2 in the ocean decreases at A and therefore some CO2 comes out of solution increasing the partial pressure (proceeding in the direction of the new equilibrium at the higher temperature). This increased partial pressure is swept by moving air masses to point B where the temperature does not increase as much, remains the same, or even decreases. At point B the CO2 spontaneously dissolves because the partial pressure exceeds the equilirium value for that temperature and concentration. Thus a transport of the CO2 is "driven" by the seaonal temperature changes. The process is reversed when the seanon changes back to the starting point. I have another, I think more important, question: Why is the condition of elecrical neutralty not brought into the discussion. All solutions, including the ocean, are to a very, vary close approximation electrically neutral. By my calculation of the total carbon dioxide 93.3% is present as bicaronate and carbonate. If 300 plus GT of carbon dioxide moves from A to B that amounts to about 7 times 10 to the 14th moles. The concentration of the major CO2 containing species in the ocean (bicarbonate) is about 0.0025 molal but that is not free to exchange without some negative charge increase or positive charge decrease. It seems to me possible that raises a serious problem for the 300 GT of supposed transport. I can do the following calculations: 1. assume equilibrium at point A (all CO2 bearing aqueous species, hydrogen and hydroxide ions, water and CO2 gas)at 288K, 2. assume a similar equilibrium at point B at 298K, 3 find the difference beyween the equilibrium CO2 partial pressures at A and B,3. find the mass of air required to move 300 GT of excess (at 288K) CO2. Does anyone want me to do that? I am now going to start a new thread to answer the questions about my ppt. So the two topics don't become confused.
101332. Stephen Baines at 02:22 AM on 17 December 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
        Schnorkel. Those papers you mention were published barely 2 months before the Thorne review was published. There are often journal rules about making substantial changes to papers late in the production process. It's likely those papers appeared too late to be included. It's not as if Thorne doesn't quote Christy. I count 31 citations of papers with Christy as coauthor. I think you can (and should) do better.
101333. Ned at 02:17 AM on 17 December 2010
        2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
        VeryTallGuy, thanks! The figure in your comment here is the exact one I had in mind when composing this comment in the other thread. I couldn't remember where I'd seen that figure (from Soden & Held, 2000), spent a lot of time looking for it, and finally ran across the similar (but not quite as good) version at Chris Colose's website.
101334. e at 02:11 AM on 17 December 2010
        2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
        Fred> Assume that the sink is capable of absorbing all the energy radiated by the source. This is an incorrect assumption for your simple model, and it invalidates your conclusions. Instead of absorbing all the energy, picture your sink absorbing a fraction of the energy emitted by the source, with that fraction increasing as the absorptivity of the sink increases. You will find that your simple model does indeed predict warming with increasing absorptivity of your sink.
101335. Riccardo at 02:07 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        damorbel as you may have noticed, I didn't continue the discussion with you before. Also, from my last comment it should be clear that I don't think you have any real interest in the science. Many people here spent a lot of time highlighting your errors and providing solid scientific ground. At a point you even said that you know better than textbooks on basic science. In response, you kept moving the goalpost, as it should be clear looking back at the discussion. There ìs a wealth of good informations out there, if your interest in the science was genuine your first step would have been to check your claims or accept the suggestions given here. My conclusion is that you're just trying to hijack the discussion and it's not my wish to provide more fuel.
101336. Schnorkel at 01:59 AM on 17 December 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
        Ricardo and Mouncounter Took your advice on board and re-read Thorne et al again. But was puzzled not to see any reference to relevant literature in this meta-review, i.e. no mention of Christy et al ("What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?") in Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148. Nor could I see any reference within to McKitrick et al's paper "Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series" in Atmospheric Science Letters. Or should we just say Christy and McKitrick don't count? That doesn't look good. Surely we can engage the sceptics on their own ground. We risk being seen as too timid to robustly confront contrary arguments. I mean, its sort of like Thorne et al just ignored people saying stuff they didn't like and focussed on the work of people who agreed with them, like Santer. It makes me think the Thorne meta-review paper you referred me to risks being seen as an attempt to get around the problem that the warming in the upper troposphere which the computer models tell us should be there, is really not there. Also I think that sceptics could see the use of the 'adiabatic' term and the "adjustments" terms as just another way to wriggle out of what they would say is the fact that human-induced climate change's hot spot is away on vacation. Surely we can do better than this.
101337. Stephen Baines at 01:58 AM on 17 December 2010
        An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
        "The explanation for El Nino and La Nina involves a circular argument. Changes in sea surface temperature are both the cause and consequence of wind fluctuations." I don't like that phrasing. It's not really a circular "argument" (which implies logical fallacy), but an argument for reinforcing system of mechanisms. Those reinforcing mechanisms form feedbacks, which are what gives the system enough momentum to create the large shift in heat distribution, winds and ocean currents observed during El Nino and La Nina.
101338. KR at 01:53 AM on 17 December 2010
        2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
        Fred Staples - "Would you agree, Ned, that there is ample scope here for rational scepticism about the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?" I would say that there is not. Greenhouse gases reduce the efficiency of emission (emissivity), as is clearly seen by satellite spectra of the Earth. Given the P = e * s * A * T^4 relationship of Power to emissivity, Stephen-Boltzmann constant, Area, and Temperature, if the emissivity goes down temperature must rise to radiate the same power.
101339. VeryTallGuy at 01:52 AM on 17 December 2010
        2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
        Fred Staples "Woods tried to test it by building two greenhouses – one radiative (ie OLR absorbent) and one non-radiative. Their internal temperatures were the same." Which proves very nicely that greenhouses work by limiting convection rather than by absorbing radiation. It tells us nothing about the atmospheric greenhouse effect other than that it's poorly named. "And if we do believe it, ignoring Woods, what will happen if we increase the absorption of the atmosphere? Its temperature cannot increase because it must continue to radiate W to space. The source to sink temperature difference must also remain the same. So nothing will happen." You're very nearly correct. The effective radiating temperature does indeed stay the same, but it moves upwards in the atmosphere. The result is that the surface temperature must rise This is the best simple explanation I've ever seen of it and may clarify for you (thanks to Science of Doom): Soden & Held, 2000
101340. Tom Dayton at 01:26 AM on 17 December 2010
        2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
        Fred Staples wrote "if we increase the absorption of the atmosphere? Its temperature cannot increase because it must continue to radiate W to space. The source to sink temperature difference must also remain the same. So nothing will happen." Fred, you are using only the rules for equilibrium, but by increasing the absorption of the sink you've pushed it out of equilibrium. While the sink moves toward a new equilibrium, additional rules apply. Increased absorption by definition means that the sink retains some of the energy W that hits it. There is no rule insisting that the retained energy instantly be radiated. Instead, the rule about how much energy is radiated depends on the temperature of the sink. The temperature of the sink does not rise enough to cause all of the newly retained energy to be radiated.
101341. TheCaz at 00:33 AM on 17 December 2010
        It's the sun
        Although that is interesting, it does not actually anser the question about the correlation between solar activity and surface temperatures.
        Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I addressed everything in your original comment that had a question mark attached. As to your question in this comment, did you read the original post? How about the Intermediate version? Or the Advanced version?
101342. damorbel at 00:19 AM on 17 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Re #255 Riccardo, you wrote:- "One more bit of misinformation added by....." And the correct version is....(?)
101343. mspelto at 00:02 AM on 17 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        Ian Howat of Ohio State and Ian Joughin from the U Washington have published so many fine papers it is easy to refer to the wrong one. The correct paper for the 32 glaciers is Howat et al (2008)
        Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks for the update on that; fixed texts.
101344. Paul D at 23:34 PM on 16 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        Daniel having quickly scanned (hence I might I have missed something) the Howat paper you link to, it looks like HR @ 2 is correct. The paper you refer to investigates 6 glaciers. Can you clarify the research you are refering to?? Are you just referencing that one paper or were there others that make up the 32 glaciers you state. Quote: "We examine data from six glaciers with ice fronts wider than 3 km."
        Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed per Mauri's comment below. Thanks for the heads-up!
101345. Fred Staples at 23:34 PM on 16 December 2010
        2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
        “The net heat flux is from the surface to the atmosphere; it's just a smaller flux than it would have been if the atmosphere weren't there (or didn't contain greenhouse gases)”. “This is all completely uncontroversial among physicists, earth and planetary scientists, and others who deal with radiation balances in their work. There is no fertile ground for AGW-skepticism here” In your post, Ned, there remains a failure to differentiate between heat and energy which is at the heart of the confusion in most of the AGW blogs. Heat (the ability to do work or raise temperature) is, by definition, the net transfer of energy between two bodies. It is wrong to consider source to sink, and sink to source, energy flows in isolation. That way madness (and perpetual motion) lies. That is why the revised Trenberth diagram is vastly superior to its misleading predecessor. Whether or not energy can do anything at all depends on its surroundings. That is why there are cooling towers on power station sites. The backward radiation on which SOD harps at inordinate length is the negative term in the Stefan-Bolzmann equation. Given that, with a few simplifying assumptions, it is very easy to calculate the greenhouse effect. Assume a spherical, heated, source in a vacuum, in direct contact with the absolute (more or less) zero of space. If the temperature of the source is Tsource, it will radiate energy, W, at a rate proportional to the fourth power of Tsource. Now surround the source with a spherical sink, close enough for us to neglect surface area corrections and (this is a thought experiment) with zero resistance to thermal energy, so that we can ignore temperature gradients. Assume that the sink is capable of absorbing all the energy radiated by the source. The sink will warm until, at equilibrium, it radiates to space the original source energy. In other words, to Tsink will rise to equal Tsource. Meanwhile, the source must warm to Tsource1 so that it can radiate the original input energy to the sink. That energy output, W, will now be proportional to the difference between the fourth power of the new source temperature, Tsource1 and the sink temperature, Tsink which will have risen to Tsource. In other words, Tsource1 to the fourth – Tsink to the fourth = Tsink to the fourth, because the sink is radiating the original energy, W, to space. But Tsink = T Source, the original source temperature, so : The new source temperature (to the fourth) = 2 * the original source temperature (to the fourth). So, finally, Tsource 1/Tsource = fourth root of 2 = 1.19 Since the moon is at 255K, we arrive at a plausible explanation of the greenhouse effect (0.19*255= 48.5K). The atmosphere does not warm the earth directly in a second law violating way; instead it acts as a radiative insulating blanket. Do we believe this explanation, Ned? Woods tried to test it by building two greenhouses – one radiative (ie OLR absorbent) and one non-radiative. Their internal temperatures were the same. And if we do believe it, ignoring Woods, what will happen if we increase the absorption of the atmosphere? Its temperature cannot increase because it must continue to radiate W to space. The source to sink temperature difference must also remain the same. So nothing will happen. Would you agree, Ned, that there is ample scope here for rational scepticism about the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?
101346. Eric (skeptic) at 23:05 PM on 16 December 2010
        An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
        #105 dhogaza, "Dessler (and everyone except Spencer) is saying that ENSO causes temperature changes which lead to cloud changes which lead to feedback. Not *all* cloud changes, as Spencer is implying..." Dessler says average cloud changes cause positive feedback. He doesn't know which, so it could be "all" cloud changes although that is unlikely. Some cloud changes also cause SST gradients which cause wind which will enhance or detract from El Nino or La Nina. That effect may be minor and it is likely not to be a "cause" in the most basic sense since no research I have seen shows that any particular patterns of clouds precede El Nino. For La Nina, there are the clouds, rain, pressure gradient and other effects of El Nino that play a role. Saying clouds cause La Nina and ignoring the rest is not supported. Here's a paper http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.144.83&rep=rep1&type=pdf that states: "The explanation for El Nino and La Nina involves a circular argument. Changes in sea surface temperature are both the cause and consequence of wind fluctuations."
101347. Riccardo at 22:15 PM on 16 December 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        "The thing about the lapse rate is that it is substantially constant at 6.5K/km over the whole planet" One more bit of misinformation added by our hero. Yes, misinformation; given the huge amount of errors thrown here, it can not simply be a lack of knowledge. A bit offtopic but interesting reading from Monbiot.
101348. cynicus at 21:49 PM on 16 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        #3, Bart, the Wu et al. paper has been discussed in detail here.
101349. Bart Verheggen at 20:50 PM on 16 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        What's the source of Fig 1? It seems a continuation of the numbers as presented in Velicogna (2009), without accounting for the criticism of Wu et al (2010). That's not to say that Wu et al should be regarded as 'the truth and nothing but the truth', but I guess neither should Velicogna.
        Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] That is just now being presented by John Wahr at AGU.
101350. HumanityRules at 20:48 PM on 16 December 2010
        Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
        I've only read the Howat 2010 paper so far but you seem to have got a few details wrong. This is what you say "Howat and others (2010) examined changes in terminus position, surface elevation and flow on 32 glaciers along the southeast coast of Greenland from 2000-2006. They affirmed that speedup results from loss of resistive stress at the front during retreat. Many retreats began with an increase in thinning rates near the front in the summer of 2003, a year of record high coastal-air and sea-surface temperatures." In fact it only studied 6 glaciers (2000-2009). Speedup is associated with reduced sea ice/melange conditions, not glacier thinning, and is correlated only with SST not with air temperature.
        Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed per Mauri's comment below. Thanks for the heads-up!

Prev  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  Next